The Philosophy of “Shut Up” V. 5
The “s” word, as you prefer to refer it, should not be used because it is believed by some that it degrades the self-esteem and dignity of a person. The word is intended to show annoyance at a person, which is somehow not allowed by what I believe to be the overzealous school system’s and teachers’ ineffective campaign to stop hate.
The use and offensive properties of the “s” word is entirely subjective, and it is the school and teachers’ belief that it should not be spoken. It is not a fact that it is offensive, it is an opinion. In fact, its widespread use throughout our country proves that it is normally socially acceptable behavior to use such a term. It is my personal opinion that its use should not be suppressed if required to express one’s emotions. The saying “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the oven” comes to mind. The “s” word does not discriminate against a minority. Only a handful of people are opposed to using it. Why then, should the phrase be barred from speech, especially when the person receiving the phrase is known not to be offended by it, and such speech is required to convey a strong request? Why, I ask, should the majority suffer at the hands of the quibbling whines and whims of the minority? Should the Church stop its practice because its beliefs do not appeal to a pagan? Should the school fire staff because a parent is angered by the apparent lack of competent teachers? As long as the majority is silent, would anyone act? The only way radical ideas can be introduced is if the disgruntled person has power.
Although the basic law of this country should grant freedom of speech, in my understanding, the environment of this classroom is many a day a sterile absolute dictatorship maintained by threat of punishment. Then it is what the dictator believes in which becomes law, however absurd or illogical it may be. In the law system of the country, a complaint about such a phrase would be dismissed without further consideration. But the system the school enforces is very similar to a dictatorship. Students are given few rights and privileges, and the punishment for being accused of a crime can be as cruel and unnecessarily severe as the dictator wishes, with no chance for appeal. In fact, there is a double jeopardy penalty for tardiness in this class: A tardy person receives a detention from both the teacher and the school, which does not do justice to this country’s ideal that a person cannot be convicted twice for the same crime. But in the dictatorship that is the classroom, harsh penalties go into effect unchecked; thus the teacher can introduce any new rule he or she wishes, and everyone must obey for fear of punishment. In fact, the majority of instructors silence complaints by saying that it is their classroom and they can do whatever they wish, further reinforcing the conjecture that some teachers abuse their power to crush and manipulate a student as they wish. Therefore, the rule against the “s” word should never be used because it is enforced by the dictator’s belief that it is offensive and the violation of this rule carries penalty.
I would like to take the time to state why I oppose such a rule. You have stated that your ideal is to protect people from offensive use of language. That is your major reason for backing your “s” word rule. In retrospect, I find your judgment to be severely flawed. When one person casually says the “s” word to a person in the class, a degrading letter, required to be read aloud to the class, is demanded. However, during the post-Socratic Seminar, many of my peers blatantly and harshly criticized my belief that punishments for mentally deficient persons should be equal to the mentally stable, and various other opinions I had voiced, with the intention of putting me down. Under your ideals you had stated, you should have realized immediately that such statements could scar a person’s psyche, yet you complacently ignored every word and let the attacks continue. Did you even stop to think that the criticism could be damaging? No, and perhaps you couldn’t have, because my beliefs differed from yours, and you would not vouch for respect of them. Call me cynical, but don’t stop to consider that you’re really calling me wry, sneering, and contemptuous. Yet another example of how your beliefs are applied into rules I don’t understand is system used for our first project, which encourages us to “think outside the box”, as you call it. I assume that this phrase means that you want us to be creative. Since you want us to do so, you promise a better grade if the project looks more creative to you, and a lesser grade if the project is “ordinary”, which the art of writing falls into. The project is then curved so that posters and videos and the like will receive higher grades, and writing an essay would decrease the grade. In fact, the only project with a specific minimum requirement established is the written assignment, which makes the choices heavily biased. It is my belief that writing is the highest form of creativity available to humans. If I use my talents to create an expository it will not only require more effort, I will receive a lower grade for it. Of course, I am just one person, so, according to my own philosophy, what does it really matter if I am largely inconvenienced by your views? The ability to receive a higher grade through what you call “creativity” is bestowed on all who will make “creative” assignments, and the “creative” would ignore my whining and personal whims. Understand that your opinions differ from others’, and perhaps it is not fair to govern in a biased manner. If you truly want to protect people against being offended, all you can do is abolish all of writing and speech, because anyone can be offended by anything. Until then, it is not right to suppose that prohibiting things that offend you will automatically result in a stable and fair environment. Many rules apply subjectively and may not be fair to everyone, but that is what government is for. It troubles me that rules in this class are made from what I believe to be a narrow minded perspective. You will only enforce your own beliefs, not others. Although I am not suggesting you rewrite your rules, perhaps you shouldn’t make rules backed by unpopular ideals, such as the rule against the “s” word, which I compare to making laws to cater to aristocrats rather than the whole body.
I believe I have answered your demand that I write why we should not say your “s” word in class sufficiently. I have concluded that we should not use that phrase because it is your belief that we should not use it, and because you have power to further degrade our lives. You will demand that I echo your beliefs in writing, you will demand that I stop, but you cannot demand me to apologize, because I have done nothing wrong, and I will not be forced into relinquishing my beliefs.
I really dont see anything wrong with it, same with grammer, nothing shot out at me, that doesnt mean thre isnt any though 
Well, thanks for all your support, except those who aren’t giving me support! I respect your decision not to support anyway, it’s not your battle after all, and you couldn’t possibly know how absolutely HORRIBLE she is to us. 
)